|
Today I read a quote that bothered me.
Some conservative said that the system didn't work, and a civil rights proponent said that this proved the system did work and adduced as evidence the fact that the guy was mostly acquitted when the government pressed charges against him. The judiciary is governed by the Constitution and by the rule of law.
Oddly, I found that disquieting. On the one hand, it's tautological: The system works because the end result of due process is due process. On the other hand, it's contrarian: Because the government lost most of its case, the system is seen to have worked. All that matters is that the process was internally consistent and not something that could be viewed as succumbing to governmental diktat.
I'd have said that the system works to the extent that every person who has committed crimes is found guilty while no innocent person is found guilty; the system is just to the extent that the definition of "crime" comports itself well with majority opinion and due regard for minority opinion, while the punishment for each crime is judged generally proportional to the effect of the crime.
However, this involves looking at the defendent and deciding for one's self if he is guilty and if there might have been something else going on. As it is, the Khyber Towers bombing verdict seems very superficially similar to the claims about the King David Hotel bombing, minus all the quibbles about intent.
|